Re: corrected typo on rdoc docs, and clarification

Sam Roberts wrote:

> Should doc patches be sent here?
Depends, sort of.  Documentation for the core classes and the standard 
library come from the rdoc comments in the source code.  There are some 
here who have CVS commit access who could apply the change.
However, I've seen documentation changes discussed on the ruby-core 
list, so it may depend on whether the patch fixes a typo, or changes 
wording to (presumably) make things clearer.  If the latter, I believe 
the owner of that code would want to see the proposed change, and that 
is more likely to happen on ruby-core.
As a rule, I would generally encourage people to post here, rather than 
have people go hunt around, at least until it is clear who should be 
sent what.
> There's a typo in the example, I noticed when I pasted it.
Which example?

> Also, I spend a half-hour debugging last night, trying to figure out
> what '' meant... I thought it was being used as a magic sign to write
> to stdout, then I read the code. So, I think it could be more clear,
> its a little subtle right now.
>
> Also, there was a mixture of +arg+ and <tt>arg</tt>.
>
> Can this be applied?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
Ah, this is part of the rdoc library.  That is maintained by Dave 
Thomas.  Dave does not follow the ruby-doc list.  He can be reached on 
either ruby-talk or ruby-core.  Code patches are probably best sent to 
ruby-core.
If you are not a subscriber to ruby-core I can pass this on to that list 
or send it to him directly.
James Britt